January 11, 2008

"You see people in group. And a civil libertarian, like myself, see everybody as an important individual."

It's Ron Paul, responding the New Republic article about the odious Ron Paul newsletter. (Note: I transcribed that properly. Ron Paul really does have a strange way of mixing up singulars and plurals — at least — interesting! — when he's talking about whether people are individuals or groups.)

Isn't it funny to think that "libertarian" is a get-out-of-racism-free card? As long as you think of people as individuals, there's no way you could look at an individual, see that he's black, and make a negative assessment? And that's assuming that your official ideology actually does prevent you from thinking anything that doesn't fit the ideology. But how could one always think only of individuals? Even in that short clip, Ron Paul goes on to talk about how "blacks" should support him, because he wants to end drug law enforcement, which has put so many "blacks" in prison. He catches himself (at about 5:10) and refers to "the individual blacks who are being so unfairly thrown in prison." But we all know there are people who present themselves in mixed settings as libertarians, but are racists in private. The Ron Paul newsletter is evidence of that. Somebody wrote it. Somebody subscribed to it.

And I must fault Wolf Blitzer for not following up on why Ron Paul didn't do something to stop the newsletter from using his name. If he in fact repudiates what is in the newsletter — which he says in the clip — then why wasn't he outraged and vigilant about preventing his name from being damaged? Was he oblivious (and is he not therefore incompetent)?

(Video via Reason Magazine, where there is a long discussion thread already. I should, in this context, flag my own past dispute with some individuals at Reason over the way a libertarian ideology can function as a cover for racism. More here. By the way, that dispute involves some mockery of me for crying — and crying is in the news this week — what with Mrs. Clinton's emotional display — so I have a second reason for dredging up the old.)

Either you'll believe him, or you won't. If you don't like his positions, you probably won't believe him.

He did let this go out under his name, should have clamped down, but didn't. A big mistake. At the time, he probably thought that on balance it was OK or easier to just ignore it. Big mistake. Now it's come back to bite him.

The sad part is that, now, instead of talking about his principles of freedom, small gov't, non-interventionist foreign policy, we're talking about THIS. Of course, that's exactly what his opponents want, and why it's come out now (this was no secret).

As I've said elsewhere, there are a good 10% to 15% of Americans whose political philosophy is essentially his, and we've long needed someone on the national stage to speak for us.

Ann: I will certainly agree that libertarianism can serve as a cover for racism; but isnt that true of any ideology? I know you arent saying that all libertarians are racist, but IMO racism transcends ideology. And the conservative part of me believes, racism is probably hard-wired into our psyches rooted in the distrust of differences thing. But thats just me. Full disclosure: in my younger days I was a full blown libertarian and even voted for Ron Paul when he ran on the Libertarian ticket in 1988. To quote Ronaldus Maximus: "I didnt leave the Libertarians--they left me."

There was a major difference between your tears and Hillary's. Hillary was feeling sorry for herself, rationalizing (inauthentically) that it is hard for her because she cares so much for others. If my memory serves, you were simply grieving for others.

Roger: Of course, but the special problem that I encountered with libertarians was that they were taking positions that could come from racism and justifying it with libertarian ideology, so that I couldn't tell whether they were using the ideology as a cover. Specifically, they opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- which Ron Paul himself does.

Ron Paul is exactly right, of course. If you advocate respect for life, liberty and property, individual rights and non-aggression, it doesn't matter what controversial or crazy idea you hold, whether it's that Blacks are inferior or that there is a god. It's the reason a person can justify a vote for Romney in spite of his funny underwear. It would be different if he advocated forcing his underwear on all of us, mush as the Dems all want to make their socialist healthcare universal and compulsory with no regard for individual rights. The disturbing thing about Paul is that he considers Evolution just one among many competing scientific theories, but, of course, none of the presidential candidates shows any sophistication whatsoever in science or math.

And that's assuming that your official ideology actually does prevent you from thinking anything that doesn't fit the ideology.

The same logic was invoked when Richard Dawkins explained that Jews control American foreign policy. His army of zombies went running around posting everywhere they could find: "If you did some research* about Professor Dawkins** you'd know that he's committed to rationalism so it's impossible that he could be an anti-Semite."

One can easily be both racist and libertarian. One could, for instance, say:

"I believe blacks are genetically inclined towards lower IQs and anti-social behaviors. However, I believe the Constitution protects equality in the eyes of the law and that blacks are entitled to all the same legal protections that whites are."

The claim that libertarianism somehow innoculates its members against racism is just innane. Sure, libertarian is an individualistic political ideology: but that doesn't mean libertarians are individualistic on everything non-political, and racism is not inherently a political belief. This is a pretty weak-kneed defense, almost as absurd as the commenter at TNR who insisted Paul could not be an anti-Semite because he worked at the Ludwig von Mises Institute and von Mises was a Jew. (That said, I'm hesitant to hop on the "Paul is a closet racist" bandwagon; I haven't seen anything written in that newsletter which suggests a belief that blacks are inferior merely by virtue of their race.)

The way I see it, there are one of two options available here:

(1) Paul actually did write the stuff, in which case he is both a liar and a petty, vitriolic, paranoid conspiracy theorist with a thin skin. Or,

(2) He's telling the truth, in which case he's a terminally naive political cuckold unqualified to run even so much as a cheap homemade newsletter racket.

I think Paul's contention that one cannot be both a libertarian and a racist is clearly wrong, unless I don't understand libertarianism. I take libertarianism to consist of a set of principles about the role of government. No matter how devout one's belief in such principles, one could still practice racial bigotry in any number of ways. One's opposition to the use of government authority to further racist objectives doesn't come close to answering the question whether such person is racist.

But what I find troubling in this post is the "get out of racism free" language and the demand that Paul be "outraged" about the newsletters. We are not entitled to assume someone is a racist because he doesn't emote on the subject. It is, I think, an insidious form of political correctness that there is this tendency to attribute such abhorrent views to someone because such person isn't angry or emotional enough in denying them.

A charge of racism shouldn't be a cage. An intellectually serious person who denies holding such views ought to be given the benefit of the doubt rather than coerced into an artificial display of outrage. I'm all for holding Paul accountable for the either/or explanation on the newsletters: he doesn't have sufficient leadership and organizational skills to keep that sort of thing from going out under his name or he didn't so much mind them being associated with him. But I could care less whether he appears outraged.

Sounds like the Clintons's usual defense: basically I had a part in all the Clinton Presidency that was good & none in what was bad.

Paul is saying, & like Hillary when confronted by what is an indefensible faux pas, saying at the top of his voice: hey, I didn't really do/say/or write any of that that, even tho it went out under my name &, hey, it's old stuff anyway & let's move on. And Paul's people/supporters seem to be saying: we agree; he avows only the stuff which represents good judgment & disavows the stuff which kinda doesn't seem so good when scrutinized by his enemies. (Kinda, sorta, ya know, the opposite of The General Confession in The Book of Common Prayer.

Maybe he should tear! Or tear his lower lip!

And now, he’s joined those who say that “it’s axiomatic that I cannot be a racist, an uncompassionate person, a sexist, a misogynist, etc. because (a) I am a Christian/Jew/Black/Woman/Gay, (b) that Blacks/Gays/Jews/Christians/Women have voted for me, (c) look at all I’ve done & will do for these, um, people I didn’t slur & (c) that many of these people will see through these unwarranted attacks & aver that, regardless of what seems at first blush something less than the perfection they know that I strive for, deep down I am a Good Guy; the Best; the Purest of them all.

I hate to show off by getting technical & resorting to Legalisms & Lawyerisms, but this latest shtick of the Hon. Paul does not meet the requirements of the strict Legal doctrine known as “ The Hee Haw Test ”.

IMO it is the word "racist" that is at the root of the problem. If a person believes that all individuals have exactly the same moral standing and advocate that these individuals be treated equally as a matter of government policy, but yet may have physical differences; eg, mean IQ as alluded to in the comment above, does that make a person a racist? The same issue arises with "sexist" and, say Larry Summers comments about women and the hard sciences.

Not trying to start a discussion on these issues, but to me, racism has become a mindless epithet and has no analytical usefulness at all.

A Althouse said ....But we all know there are people who present themselves in mixed settings as libertarians, but are racists in private. The Ron Paul newsletter is evidence of that. Somebody wrote it. Somebody subscribed to it.

You sound like Dana Carvey's Church Lady looking for sin and sinners everywhere.

Replace Princess Diana and "slut" with Ron Paul and "racist" and I think this is about right:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYa_ChYf4rw

All prissiness aside for a moment, the bigger issue of race that Ron Paul mentioned is important. The US prison system has a huge percentage of black males incarcerated on drug crimes. They are in prison and most will never be able to vote when let out.

All you "good" White people need to lay off the racial narcissism for a moment and look at the issues that are really oppressing many blacks and not constantly look for opportunities to get your moralistic rocks off feeling superior to some "Other" White person.

I don't think Ron Paul is qualified to be President but not for his racial views but because he has no executive management experience.

Ron Paul is an obstetrician who has delivered thousands of babies. As long as he is competent at that I don't care about an old newsletter with is name on it.

Now if you want to talk about racism and a top candidate here's something for you:

If Sen. Obama rejects the Rev. Wright’s warped view of this country, why does he continue to attend his church?

Monday, January 7, 2008 10:16 AM

By: Ronald Kessler

Imagine if Mitt Romney’s church proclaimed on its website that it is “unashamedly white.”

The media would pounce, and Romney’s presidential candidacy would be over. Yet that is exactly what Barack Obama’s church says on its web site — except in reverse.

“We are a congregation which is unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian,” says the Trinity United Church of Christ’s website in Chicago. “We are an African people and remain true to our native land, the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.”

That’s just the beginning. The church has a “non-negotiable commitment to Africa,” according to its website, and its pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. subscribes to what is called the Black Value System.

While the Black Value System includes such items as commitment to God, education, and self-discipline, it refers to “our racist competitive society” and includes the disavowal of the pursuit of “middle-classness” and a pledge of allegiance to “all black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System.” It defines “middle-classness” as a way for American society to “snare” blacks rather than “killing them off directly” or “placing them in concentration camps,” just as the country structures “an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.”

In sermons and interviews, Dr. Wright has equated Zionism with racism and Israel with South Africa under its previous policy of apartheid. On the Sunday after 9/11, Wright said the attacks were a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later, Wright suggested that the attacks were retribution for America’s racism.

“In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01,” Wright wrote in a church-affiliated magazine. “White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.”

In one of his sermons, Wright said, “Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!...We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.”

As for Israel, “The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over 40 years now,” Wright has said. “Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community and wake up Americans concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism.”

I object to the imprecise conflation of libertarianism with individualism. We are profoundly social animals, deriving our existing from others and living out our entire lives in interdependence with others. On the other hand, libertarianism, to my mind, is primarily about calling into question the authority the State purports to have to exercise coercive power (both generally and with respect to particular functions). This questioning of authority reveals the "wizard" behind the curtain.

John Kindly: well said. It has always been interesting to me that people can seem to sort out what liberalism and conservativism are, which in practice are far more fuzzy concepts than is libertarianism in practice (which presumabably some people confuse with Ayn Rand's objectivism).

Ann Althouse said... the special problem that I encountered with libertarians was that they were taking positions that could come from racism and justifying it with libertarian ideology, so that I couldn't tell whether they were using the ideology as a cover.

In an academic context it doesn't matter, so I didn't have much sympathy when you started bawling at that libertarian conference. In that situation it's the positions that count, not speculation on why they are taken--that's just ad hominem.

But in choosing a president one does have to get a sense of the candidate from what he says, since if elected his actions will be of more than academic interest. Paul says stupid and crazy things, so it's legitimate to infer that he is in fact stupid and crazy (the putative racism is just one symptom of this more serious underlying problem) and hence not good presidential material.

BTW, something that puzzles me is that there must be a lot of sane, intelligent libertarians around, yet all libertarian politicians I've heard of seem to be mentally defective. Why is that?

Smilin Jack: good question; here is the libertarian paradox: Seeking political office makes the devout libertarian sacrifice his libertarian principles with respect to the use of government; it is like the use of government to bring about libertarian principles--not an appropriate use of government. In my calculus, any libertarian politician is an oxymoron (pun intended).

IMO it is the word "racist" that is at the root of the problem. If a person believes that all individuals have exactly the same moral standing and advocate that these individuals be treated equally as a matter of government policy, but yet may have physical differences; eg, mean IQ as alluded to in the comment above, does that make a person a racist? The same issue arises with "sexist" and, say Larry Summers comments about women and the hard sciences.

Acknowledging that differences exist between races is not racist (this is why I said I decline to jump on the "racism" bandwagon). It's not remarkable to point out that blacks have a lower mean IQ than whites, or that whites have a lower mean IQ than Asians; these are empirically demonstrable facts.

The term racist applies when you attribute these differences solely to membership in that race -- i.e., if you say that the mean IQ for blacks is lower because the black race is inherently/genetically inferior. We can't make that judgment objectively because we don't know what proportion of IQ is determined by nature (though we know it isn't 100%, since simple things like nutrition have an observable impact on IQ scores, too). I don't see that Paul made that judgment, so I can't honestly judge him as a racist. Though I can certainly judge him as either a petty, thin-skinned bastard or a patsy who surrounds himself with petty, thin-skinned bastards.

The sad part is that, now, instead of talking about his principles of freedom, small gov't, non-interventionist foreign policy, we're talking about THIS.

He is a Presidential candidate, not a college professor. If you want to discuss ideas like small government and non-interventionist foreign policy then by all means, let us do so. But there is no point in continuing to discuss whether or not Paul should be President, because the answer is obviously "no". Even if every individual policy belief that Paul held was a fantastic idea, the man himself does not belong in the White House.

This has been obvious for a long time; the revelation that he earned money publishing racist and homophobic newsletters under his name just makes it even MORE obvious.

Other people have already pointed out that Paul's "libertarians can't be racist" line is a load of hooey. I'd just like to add an extra observation: Paul holds many beliefs that are explicitly anti-libertarian. For example, he favors tight immigration restrictions and restrictions on free trade, which places him in direct opposition to the libertarian belief in open borders and unrestricted trade.

So even if it was true that libertarians cannot be racists, it does not follow that Paul cannot be one -- we know for certain that he isn't a pure libertarian, and have only his word that he ignores racial groups. It isn't even a particularly believable claim, since (as Ann pointed out) he uses racial classifications himself, as did the writers in his "libertarian" newsletter.

I think Ron just got a little mixed up with the whole "libertarians can't be racist" thing (he's not the best of public speakers). Of course libertarians can be racists. What sets libertarian political philosophy apart is the fact that it doesn't matter if an individual libertarian politican because libertarianism by definition allows no outlets for racist views to become policy. Libertarianism litteraly takes the issue of racism off the table.

would you concede that good libertarians would at least be reluctant to be drawn into governmental service?

Libertarians aren't *anarchists*. They (well, "we" but I'm hardly a purist) do believe that there are aspects of government that are both good and necessary. There is no particular reason for a libertarian to be reluctant to work for the government -- provided it was the right *part* of the government.

I think the term libertarian encompasses both anarchists and so-called "minarchists." And there's not necessarily a clear dividing line between the two. As Thoreau put it: "I heartily accept the motto, — 'That government is best which governs least;' and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — 'That government is best which governs not at all;' and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."

I consider myself an anarchist theoretically and a minarchist pragmatically. It's the theoretical anarchism which justifies and enjoins the minarchism, rather than a mere unprincipled preference for less government. Theoretical anarchism is pithily summarized in these words of Lysander Spooner (from his The Unconstitutionality of Slavery): "There is, and can be, correctly speaking, no law but natural law." Now, I know Revenant is tired of me citing Lysander Spooner, so here's Thomas Aquinas (who no one thinks of as an anarchist) saying essentially the same thing: "Every human law has just so much of the nature of law as it is derived from the law of nature. But if in any point it deflects from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but a perversion of law."

would you concede that good libertarians would at least be reluctant to be drawn into governmental service? :)

I think that would be true only if the government were sufficiently minimal. Heh.

I've said elsewhere that I thought I voted for Ron Paul once. Though in retrospect, I believe I actually voted for Dukakis--yeah, I know, but SOMEBODY had to--that year. Anyway, I've voted (L) pretty consistently and may again this year unless I can vote for Fred or against Huckabee.

It's actually kind of painful to see one's beliefs espoused by a guy like Ron Paul who's so anti-USA.

I used to consider myself a libertarian (even with a capital L) but over time I've come to think that libertarianism can only usefully come from the bottom up.

In other words, it's really only as people become more responsible that they'll be willing to dismantle government intrusions.

Stop laughing!It can happen.

I think the fact that welfare got rolled back is an example of it. I've heard Fred talk about older folks sacrificing a little SS--grandparents sacrificing to help out their grandkids--which would be great. I've heard Rudy talk some stuff about health insurance and how the gov't has a share of responsibility for skyrocketing medical costs.

I don't know if either will win, but both have been considered viable despite expressing those opinions. I think that's a good sign.

People of any ideology can be racist, and to my mind, liberals are the ones who most exploit their politics as a cover for racism/sexism/anti-semitism. Go to a lefty website and check the comments on a post about Condi Rice or Michelle Malkin.

Liberals regularly give each other a free pass on this stuff. In fact, the hate that pervades the comments at Kos or Crooks & Liars have won those sites huge popularity.

Are there some kooky libertarians? Hell yes. But when it comes to an ideology covering for racism ... well, libertarianism isn't the first one that comes to my mind.

Exactly, I don't care what Ron Paul's newsletter said about MLK 15 years ago. Nor do I care what Huckabee said a Preacher 15 ago, or what Hillary! wrote as a student at college, or what McCain did 40 years ago in Vietnam.

People need to stop caring about Ancient History when picking a POTUS. If you don't like Paul, attack him for his current Loony positions.

People need to stop caring about Ancient History when picking a POTUS.

Fifteen years ago is "ancient history"?

Fifteen years ago, Ron Paul was a 57 years old adult. He was also one of two things:

(1): A paranoid, racist, homophobic Jew-hater who believed in insane conspiracy theories, or

(2): A person who made money publishing paranoid, racist, homophobic, Jew-hating articles and insane conspiracy theories written by other people, after putting his name on them.

Are we to believe that, at some point between the ages of 57 and 72, Ron Paul suddenly changed from an insane bigot (or purveyor of insane bigotry) into a decent human being worthy of the Presidency? Can he pinpoint the exact date on which this transformation took place? Can you cite any outward evidence of it, beyond his expressing half-assed regrets *after* members of the news media caught on? Can he explain why, if this transformation took place, he is STILL hanging out with the same back of racists and conspiracy nutcases that he was back then?

Of course he can't. There is no explanation. The truth is that Ron Paul honestly doesn't see anything wrong with those newsletters; he's just annoyed that he's catching flak over them.

I see no evidence from Paul's speeches in the last 15 years that indicate he is a "Jew Hater" or hates Black or Gay people. I'm not going to write about "Racism" or "Homophobia" since these words have become meaningless through overuse and constant use by the Left against conservatives.

Secondly, where are the actual "words" and in what context were they used? I'm skeptical when all I get is Characterization and phrases lifted out of context.

In any case, if this is all you to prove Paul hates Jews, blacks, and Gays, you'd move on.

I think from inception of this problem we are seeing it all wrong. We are criticizing the man our perspective, our socialization, and our culture. We jumped the gun on this one.

I, like many, believed that it was crazy for Ron Paul not to have noticed the newsletters being published under his name, but after understanding and investigating the matter on my own, I came to realize I jumped the gun. I read many personal testaments from people who've met him, Kirchick who brought the article to the surface even personally thinks Ron Paul isn't a racist homophobe.

I mean, Ron Paul is a man of principles and has always been made an outcast in the Republican party, ridiculed by his ideologies, his anti-war stance. So, the moment something from the past that has already been there before, we judge the man quickly to ruin his character because we don't know anything except for the tube told us?

Listen to him when he says those things, and it seems genuine. It is so easy for us to criticize others in this contemporary society before re-evaluating ourselves and noticing we have made mistakes of negligence and ignorance.

I see no evidence from Paul's speeches in the last 15 years that indicate he is a "Jew Hater" or hates Black or Gay people.

Besides taking money from Nazis?

We have evidence that he hated blacks, Jews, and gays 15 years ago. We have no evidence during the past 15 years that he's stopped. We don't need evidence that he still supports those beliefs; we know that he used to, and it is up to him to prove that he has stopped doing so and is sincerely sorry for having done so.

I'm not going to write about "Racism" or "Homophobia"

Then your opinions on this subject are utterly worthless. It doesn't matter if leftists call things "racist" or "homophobic" that aren't; Paul's newsletters were racist, homophobic, anti-semitic and insane under any standard short of that of the Klan.

Secondly, where are the actual "words" and in what context were they used?

Google them yourself.

In any case, if this is all you to prove Paul hates Jews, blacks, and Gays, you'd move on.

Kirchick who brought the article to the surface even personally thinks Ron Paul isn't a racist homophobe.

That statement of Kirchick's was made by him prior to discovering some of Paul's nastier newsletters. Paul's fanboys have been quoting it out of context ever since.

But let's say it is true, and that Paul really didn't know what was going on. This means that Paul spent over a decade collecting money from racists, homophobes, and other nutcases, all writing articles under his name -- in a newsletter published by his campaign manager -- without ever bothering to see what they were writing in his name.

So even in this unrealistically rosy scenario under which Paul is truly innocent and pure of heart, the best that can be said of him is that he is hopelessly incompetent and inattentive. No matter how you slice it, he's got no business in the White House.

Of course that's pretty much moot, since he was never going to get anywhere near the White House -- and certainly isn't going to now.